Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Orland Park commission approves variance to reduce side-yard setback for Lorenz home

5127227 · July 2, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Orland Park Planning Commission on July 1 approved a variance allowing an addition at 11300 W. 150th Street to reduce the minimum side-yard setback from 20 feet to 10.7 feet, after staff recommendation and discussion of floodplain, pipeline easement and neighbor concerns about excavation and tree roots.

ORLAND PARK, Ill. — The Orland Park Planning Commission voted to approve a variance July 1 allowing a homeowner to build an addition that reduces the required side-yard setback from 20 feet to 10.7 feet at 11300 W. 150th Street.

The commission’s approval, made on a staff recommendation, will allow John Lorenz and his family to add a garage with living space above and convert the existing attached garage to storage and office space. The petitioners said the lot’s irregular shape and the presence of Spring Creek and associated floodplain limit where they can expand.

The variance was requested because the property was recently rezoned to R-3 and the lot’s shape, creek, and a 50-foot setback from the creek’s high watermark make eastward expansion infeasible. Staff recommended approval of a variance from section 6-204(e)(2)(a) of the Land Development Code, and the commission approved the staff recommendation by roll call vote (Aye: Commissioners Sanchez, Paul, Schuessler, Nugent, Zapparelli, Chairman Parisi). Motion by Commissioner Schuessler; second by Commissioner Zamperelli.

Petitioner John Lorenz said he and his wife purchased the home in September 2024 and intend the addition to meet the needs of their three children under age 4 and to place the master bedroom on the same floor as the children. "Both of us hope to raise our family here as well," Lorenz told the commission, and he said the proposed retaining wall will be built into the new garage wall to preserve trees on the property.

A nearby resident and property owner, Jim Stanek, submitted a written objection and spoke at the hearing. Stanek said the proposed 1,150-square-foot garage addition (described in his remarks as approximately 35 feet deep) should be reduced in depth to avoid a variance and warned that excavation "to a depth of up to 12 feet" could come within about 7 feet of his dense woods and potentially damage roots of oak, hickory and other trees. "I strongly object to the petitioner's request for minimum side yard setback variance of 20 feet to 10.7 feet to construct an oversized garage addition," Stanek said.

Staff explained the property’s zoning history and constraints: the parcel was recently rezoned from E-1 to R-3, the existing west-side setback already measured about 13.4 feet at one point of the house, and a 50-foot pipeline easement runs along the public right-of-way but the easement owner submitted a letter of no objection allowing a 10-foot encroachment. Staff noted two grading and drainage plans had been submitted; the plan being pursued includes the retaining wall integrated into the building.

Commissioners discussed the unique lot shape, the side-load garage configuration and precedent for setbacks in the neighborhood. Several commissioners inspected the property prior to the meeting and said the proposed location is the only feasible place for the addition because of the creek, topography and lot geometry. Commissioners asked for clarification about excavation depth and tree impacts; staff and the petitioner said footing depth would be determined by an engineer during permitting and that typical footings for a garage with living space above may require excavation in the range of about 6 to 12 feet.

The commission’s approval was granted with the condition that the petition follow normal permitting and engineering review. Staff referenced the plan commission staff report dated June 27, 2025, as the basis for findings of fact.

What happens next: the approved variance allows the petitioner to proceed to building permit and engineering review; any construction will still be subject to the village’s permitting, grading and drainage requirements and any conditions imposed during permit review.